The latest on Latin American affairs, U.S.-Latin American ties, U.S. Hispanics and immigration

Monday, March 05, 2007

MEMO TO BUSH: WHAT TO SAY IN LATIN AMERICA -- MEMO A BUSH

If I were one of President Bush's close friends in corporate America -- the ones he really listens to -- and was asked for advice for his March 8-14 trip to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico, these are the four things I would recommend him to say. Read the four proposals here, and let me know what YOU think.

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

from: Paul ThørsenPThorsen240@aol.com

åndèrs, looks as if you expect the USA to make an economic success out of Latin America at our own expense. Why do you expect the USA to give amnesty to 12 million illegal Hispanicks? I was you Hispanics who set the precedent by hunting down and savagely massacring any people who were found to be living in what Hispanics saw as "their land", far from any Spanish settlement:

http://www.folger.edu/institute/jamestown/c_parr.htmWhen the English settled at Jamestown, they were constantly on the lookout for a Spanish attack against their foothold in the New World. They knew how Spain had responded to previous challenges to its claims made under the Papal Donation of 1493, including Pedro Menéndez's massacre of Frenchmen in La Florida in 1565.

from "Spanish Texas", by Gerald Ashford, copyright 1971.page 174Nolan was not the first American to enter Texas, but he was by far the most important up to his time. Most of the handful of others who dared cross the border in the late 18th Century were either driven back or carried away to the mines of interior Mexico. To cross the Spanish iron curtain of that day, without a special license from the King of Spain, was in fact a capital offense.

You should have given our President more-and bolder- suggestions, specially since he seems to be listening to you.

Item # 2 in your list of suggestions has to do with something that is in the gist of any society's development goals: the capacity to generate and protect secured transactions. And it deserves far more coverage from you and other pundits than it has been getting.

Movables are often a better source of security for credit than untitled -and even titled- land is, because of their agility and liquidity. So it is not all about generating and incentivating mortgage lending. And there is even a set of rules already tacitly consented to by a majority of nations in our hemisphere (an Interamerican Model Law on Secured Transactions -"garantias mobiliarias"- sponsored and promoted by the OAS for its adoption by all its member states), but it is a well kept secret, perhaps because it is not able to generate the same kind of exitement as a pieve on Ann Nicole would.

So now that you have made a succesful suggestion to W. on this issue, maybe you will soon follow up with some discussion of the significance amd nuances of secured lending as a gateway to development and a scape door from poverty.

I am glad that you are not an advisor or even someone who Bush listens to; if he indeed listens to anyone.

I am sad though to find out how limited is the scope of your strategic vision towards Latin America and certainly in awe at the stereotypes you portray and the ridiculous, to say the least, concepts expressed in your letter.

Let me start by saying that your choice of words to address the president (”Dear Mr. President”) in itself denotes a certain weakness for servitude. By using the word “Dear” you come across as a groupie instead of a corporate leader. Believe me when I say that no corporate leader in Mr. Bush’s inner circle would show that kind of attitude.

“Mr. President” alone would have been not only proper but certainly more suitable and smart since, as a corporate leader, you would want to make sure that eventually you don’t have to regret calling “Dear” someone who most likely will be regarded as the worst president in the history of the United States.

While the above is merely a cosmetic critic to that imaginary Bush “wannabe groupie” you so warmly portray in your letter, it does show your lack of understanding of the relationship between US politics and corporate America.

Of a bigger concern to me though are the following comments in your letter because they are not only wrong and to a certain extent offensive but indeed because they epitomize and promote the contradictions between opposite positions of political stereotypes that do not represent the main stream thinking either in the US or Latin America. In that sense you and Chavez do come across as very much alike.

Comment # 1: …”the Democratic Party will accuse you in the 2008 election campaign of having ''lost'' Latin America.”

You can not loose what you never had, never pursued and most certainly will never have; As in the letter of the song “Prohibido Olvidar” by Ruben Blades, ... “cada nacion depende del corazon de su gente y un pais que no se vende, nadie lo podra comprar” ... (each nation relies on the heart of its people and a country that is not for sale will never be bought).

I am deeply sorry that you have such a poor opinion of Latin America and hate to be the one who breaks the news to you but the fact is that Latin America is not for sale Mr. Oppenheimer and we certainly are not out on a shopping spree.

Therefore, your inaccurate portrayal of the United States looking upon Latin America as a possession as well as your wrong, over simplistic and malicious, to say the least, portrayal of corporate America even in an imaginary letter such as the one you have published in the Miami Herald is offensive both to Latin Americans and to us, Americans.

While I will concede that there are some corporate leaders as well as conservative politicians in the United States that have a feudalistic vision of international relations, both political and economic, by far the majority of corporate leaders, politicians and the people of the United States favor and believe on international relations that are based on mutual benefit and respect.

If at all, your “Dear Mr. President” and some of his closest collaborators may very well be the only ones left that believe otherwise.

Further, we are people who learn from our mistakes, we are not afraid to change and we are very good at adapting to new conditions. We are aware of the risks and challenges that the US and the world will have to face in the near future; the potential impact of global warming in the productivity of the land; the potential impact of diminishing energy resources on the world's economy; the potential impact of pandemics etc.

We are also aware of the ever increasing inter-dependency between the US and its neighbors in the Americas. Of the risks that an antibiotic resistant strain of TBC, nurtured by misery and inadequate health standards, can pose to everyone in the continent; of the corrosive influence that drug trafficking has on institutions throughout the Americas; of the pervasive impact that endemic poverty has on the stability in all the Americas, etc.

We are aware of all this, we acknowledge that some of these problems have been exacerbated by our wrong policies in the region and we are working on creative solutions to solve those problems as well as on new policies that are fair and adequate for the times we live.

We may be greedy but we are not a bunch of stupid and voracious pilferers. Even when we abuse our power we do have a sense of purpose and while protecting our best interest is certainly the prevailing motivation behind our policies and actions we always have the common good at heart; however short-sighted or biased our perception of such might be.

Comment # 2: …”The Republican Party will need some big time damage control in the region”…

There is no need for damage control because nothing has been damaged. On the contrary, perhaps the only success story of the Bush presidency is his policy or, I should say, his lack of policy towards Latin America.

By doing nothing and leaving Latin America alone the region has been able to come of age, grow up and develop a sense of pride and self respect that is not only positive but indeed in the best interest of the US.

Portraying Latin American countries and presidents as good and bad based on a manipulative linear distribution of left and right is not only absurd but has absolutely no meaning for the US.

Though we are openly critical of autocratic and totalitarian leaders such as Castro and Chavez, this is certainly not the case of other Socialist presidents throughout the region. All the other socialist presidents are working to better the life and well being of their people. They are doing it within democratic governments, preserving democratic institutions and without curtailing the basic freedoms of their people.

We respect that and while we may disagree with their political options there is no reason whatsoever why we should not support and work with them in areas of mutual interest. After all, eventhough from an ideological standpoint we could not be farther apart from China, they are our main trade partner.

Promoting the senseless and self serving concept that right is good and left is bad is not on the best interest of Latin America or the United States. It is though in the best interest of extremists of all kinds both in the US and Latin America with whom, I am sorry to say, you seem to feel very cozy.

Comment # 3: “To reverse this trend and restore the U.S. image as an engine of social progress”….

Don’t say what is not true. We may be an engine of technological and even economic advancement but we are well behind when it comes to social progress. We know what we are and we know what we lack. We do not need people to tell us that we are something we are not.

Stop trying to be more American than Americans. It makes you look bad and it certainly will not make you earn our respect. We only respect those who respect themselves.

As for your proposals, some of which I find just ludicrous, I will also be posting comments on your blog and exposing them while you are traveling through out Latin America.

As a token of those comments I will leave you with the following thought.

Your proposal of colonizing Latin America with our elders while luring the young working force and professionals from Latin America to the US seems like a policy inspired by the “Parricide” beliefs of the Eskimo tribes and a gullible definition for economic slavery.

Andres,As usual, you hit some nails right square on the head. Regaining U.S. prestige in Latin America MUST include education incentives such as you mention with the HELP program. You should also mention that education programs should include for Latin Americans to study in U.S. institutions of higher education such as the Broward Community College U.S. accredited branch campus opening in Ecuador. BCC is a national leader in their international programs and Latin America is the closest market. Students in Ecuador can earn up to an Associate Degree before transferring throughout the U.S. The program was offered by Brookdale Community College in Lincroft, NJ but now Broward is taking over. Over 1,800 students have studied here and then transferred to everywhere in the U.S. since 1985. We also have a very strong working relationship with the University of Florida.Unfortunately, there is no support from the U.S. government for our education programs; Yet! Our program should be a model in Latin America. Jim Whitman, Director of BCC in Ecuador. jwhitman@brookdale.edu.ec

About this blog

Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer, author of five best-sellers on Latin American affairs and whose syndicated column appears in 55 major U.S. and Latin American newspapers, comments on the latest events in Latin America and U.S.- Latin American affairs. He is a member of The Miami Herald team that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize. He also won the 1999 Maria Moors Cabot Award, the 2001 King of Spain prize, and the 2005 Emmy Suncoast award. He is the author of Castro's Final Hour; Bordering on Chaos, on Mexico's crisis; Cronicas de heroes y bandidos and Ojos vendados, and most recently of "Cuentos Chinos" (Plaza & Janes, Mexico.) A new Oppenheimer Report appears every Sunday and Thursday.